The Supreme Court has held that High Courts cannot act as appellate courts to reassess factual findings recorded by civil courts while exercising certiorari jurisdiction. The Court further emphasized that any order affecting a party’s rights, ownership, or possession cannot be passed without giving that party an opportunity to be heard, reiterating that adherence to the principles of natural justice is indispensable. 

A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi delivered the judgment while allowing an appeal arising out of a long-pending partition dispute from Karnataka. The Court set aside the Karnataka High Court’s order and restored the judgment of the First Appellate Court in its entirety, while leaving it open to the respondents to pursue any other remedies available under law. 

Buy Now: Supreme court Judgements E-Compilation – JUNE 2026

Background of the Dispute

The litigation traces its origin to a partition suit instituted in 1999 before the Civil Judge at Kushtagi. The plaintiffs sought partition and separate possession of a two-thirds share in certain agricultural properties, contending that the lands originally belonged to their father and that, despite mutation entries standing in the name of their brother, they continued to possess joint rights over the properties.

Following the brother’s death in 1983, his daughter, Basamma, became the recorded owner and subsequently executed several sale deeds in favour of third-party purchasers. The plaintiffs alleged that these transactions were undertaken without their consent and sought partition along with consequential reliefs. 

The defendants resisted the suit by arguing that the properties were self-acquired and therefore not available for partition. They also maintained that the purchasers were bona fide purchasers for value.

Trial Court and First Appellate Court Findings

The Trial Court dismissed the partition suit in 2015 after concluding that the plaintiffs had failed to establish that the suit properties were ancestral or joint family properties. It held that Basamma was the owner and therefore competent to alienate the properties through registered sale deeds. 

The plaintiffs’ appeal also failed. Although the First Appellate Court agreed that the plaintiffs had no entitlement to partition, it made additional observations in Paragraph 24 of its judgment concerning the validity of certain sale deeds executed in favour of purchasers. It observed that some transactions appeared invalid and recorded findings regarding ownership and possession of the disputed properties. 

High Court’s Intervention

One of the purchasers challenged only these observations before the Karnataka High Court through a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The High Court accepted the purchaser’s contention that the findings recorded in Paragraph 24 had been made without adequate pleadings, issues or evidence. It therefore set aside only those observations while affirming the dismissal of the partition appeal in all other respects. The High Court also granted liberty to the petitioner to rely upon its order before the revenue authorities. 

Supreme Court Examines Scope of Certiorari Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court framed two principal issues: whether such a writ petition was maintainable after the civil courts had adjudicated the dispute, and whether the High Court could set aside factual findings of the First Appellate Court without hearing the affected parties. 

The Court undertook an extensive review of constitutional jurisprudence governing writs of certiorari, relying upon landmark Constitution Bench decisions including Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque and Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, besides later decisions such as Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das.

Reaffirming settled law, the Court observed that certiorari is a supervisory remedy and not an appellate one. High Courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute their own factual conclusions merely because another view is possible. Interference is justified only where there is a jurisdictional error, patent illegality, violation of natural justice, or findings based on no evidence. 

High Court Exceeded Its Jurisdiction

Applying these principles, the Supreme Court found that the High Court had exceeded the permissible limits of certiorari jurisdiction.

The Bench noted that the First Appellate Court had independently examined pleadings, mutation entries, sale deeds, documentary evidence and the conduct of the parties before recording the disputed findings. Consequently, it was incorrect for the High Court to conclude that those findings lacked evidentiary support.

The Court held that once a competent appellate court has returned factual findings after appreciating evidence, the High Court cannot revisit those findings as though it were hearing a statutory appeal. 

Violation of Natural Justice

The Supreme Court also found a serious procedural defect in the High Court proceedings.

It observed that the findings challenged before the High Court directly affected the ownership and possessory rights of Basamma and another purchaser. Despite this, the High Court disposed of the writ petition without serving notice upon them or providing an opportunity of hearing.

The Bench held that this amounted to a clear violation of the doctrine of audi alteram partem, one of the fundamental principles of natural justice. It reiterated that any judicial determination adversely affecting a person’s civil rights must ordinarily be preceded by an effective opportunity of hearing. The Court referred to several decisions, including State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh, Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV), and Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of M.P., to underline the centrality of procedural fairness in judicial proceedings. 

Final Verdict

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the Karnataka High Court’s judgment dated 22 February 2023 and restored the judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 2 August 2021 in its entirety.

However, the Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the underlying property dispute. It granted liberty to the respondents to pursue any alternative remedies available in law within three months, directing that limitation should not stand in the way of adjudication on merits. 

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Missing Train Ticket Alone Can’t Defeat Railway Accident Compensation Claims: Supreme Court